[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary

Tue Nov 26 16:30:37 UTC 2019

Alexander,

Any ideas for upholding ICANN's promises as well, not only applicant promises ? The imbalance here is what worries me most. 

Rubens

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 13:11, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
> 
> Vanda,
> 
> I would like to invoke ICANN's core mission and the outcome of the 2007 PDP.
> 
> New gTLDs are NOT "assets"; and nobody "owns" them. You have to nicely request being allowed to operate a new gTLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. You are NEVER awarded "ownership": it's a wet fantasy of the Brand Lobby. Which part of ICANN's bylaws, it's mission statement, the 2012 AGB or the RA support that outrageous notion?
> 
> The 2007 PDP more than clearly made statements that constitute a "use requirement". Either we change those 2007 PDP provisions - or we honor them.
> 
> Why do you think that you get your contract CANCELLED - just for not engaging in "testing" (adding the TLD to the root)? If your made-up assertions would be right: then after contracting there wouldn't be ANY obligations at all. 
> 
> We SEVERELY punish applicants who do not contract within 9 month (application withdrawal); we SEVERELY punish registries for not testing (contract cancelation after 9 month) - and we SHOULD severally punish if a registry doesn't follow through with its operation mode laid out in their application: if a registry has a Sunrise in their application - then they have to execute it. If there is no sunrise - then all is fine. I do really not understand how this is so complicated to understand.
> 
> Imagine I go to the city council and ask to operate a piece of public land in the city center. And I lure them in by claiming that the operation  (a mall or hotel) would enrich the city's attractiveness. The city awards me a (super cheap) 10 year lease contract of the land (based on my promises) - and I merely convert it into a big construction site (bulldoze it down within 1 month). Then for 10 years I would do NOTHING. Instead I wait for somebody to buy my contract. Or I ran out of money - and can't follow through with my plans. You as a citizen: would you want that the city extends that lease another 10 years?
> 
> The DNS belongs to The Internet Community. You apply to run a piece of this essential infrastructure. You make promises  (e.g. that you start up with a sunrise). If you do not follow through with your promises;  then after a DECADE something should happen.
> 
> If you can't commit to a Sunrise within a prescribed period of time - say so in your application. But don't promise - then not deliver. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander.berlin
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Samsung device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org <mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>> 
> Date: 11/26/19 10:11 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs	Summary 
> 
> Dear Jeff, all
> Even quite involved in other groups with no much time to dedicate to this one, I am reading and here my points:
> I totally agree with  the side NOT in FAVOR of the proposal.  First think we can understand all the reasons anyone have to keep a not used TLD is a lot pretentious from our side. If the applicant was approved for whole process and had paid for it, if applicant use it there will be rules to be followed but if he decide to just to keep it, we ( ICANN) has no say about it. The TLD is now a asset belonging to such winner applicant.
> I also agree that too much restriction just reduce the chance of South hemisphere candidate to face the challenge.
> Thank you for all your work on this issue.
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
> Sorry for any typos. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
> Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:31
> To: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary
>  
>  
> All,
>  
> This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement.  In trying to sum up where we are:
>  
> Proposal:
> Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years).  Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement.
>  
> What is the problem we are trying to Solve?
> ·         From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.”
> ·         From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.”
> ·         From Christopher:  “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings.
> ·         Supported by Jorge
>  
> From those not in favor of the Proposal
> ·         Kristine:  No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.”
> ·         Marc:  What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical
> ·         Maxim:  What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch
> ·         Supported by Martin
> ·        
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191126/c693d87c/attachment-0001.html>